NationStates Jolt Archive

Below I have pasted a copy of my recently proposed UN resolution on Population growth:

Control Population Growth
A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency.


Category: Moral Decency
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Adamsgrad

Description: It was difficult to determine what category this proposal falls into. I considered putting it within the environment category, for its impact there. However, for reasons that I will begin to explain, I believe that this proposal best comes under the category of Moral Decency because of the impact that it would have on people's civil rights.

The World's population is growing at a faster rate than it has at any previous time in history.

Technological advancements have led to an improvement in the quality of medical care being provided by nations across the globe - rich and poor alike. Essentially, these advancements have extended the average life-span of the people of this world while also reducing the death-rate.

And the result of this is? Ever increasing world population figures.

This creates the following problems:

1.) The world's resources are being stretched to accomodate this population growth. There is, after all, only a finite amount of oil.

2.) Unemployment. It is impossible to provided jobs for everybody when populations are growing so quickly.

3.) Poverty. This is a net result of the above. Unemployment = poverty = crime.

4.) Environmental concerns. More people mean more cars on the road. And that means what? More greenhouse emissions, global warming etc. I'm sure you know about the Ozone layer.

5.) Longer Waiting lists. Population growth means that healthcare systems have to accomadate for a greater number of people. Essentially, what this means is more people for every doctor to treat.

6.) Larger class sizes. This is similar to the above, but affects the quality of education being provided. A high birth rate means that schools have to accomadate for an ever growing number of children. This makes it more difficult to cater for all the children's individual needs.

As you can see, fast growing populations are affecting ever aspect of society and leading to a general decrease in the quality of life for all.

For this reason, I propose that, from now on, the UN support policies pertaining to controlling population growth throughout the globe.

To be more specific, that the UN support birth control as a method for keeping the global population down and thus, enhancing quality of life for everybody living.

Of course, this might mean having to impose a limit on just how many children each family be allowed to have. What this limit should be is something which can be debated within the hallowed halls of the UN. My suggestion is two.

To put this question simply, do we allow the global population to continue to increase rapidly, or take measures to slow the rate of population growth?

I would be interested to know what you UN delegates think about this proposal. If you don't support it, why not?

I agree, it is a tough call between Moral Decency and Environmental, but people are funny about wanting to breed themselves to destruction ... I'd lean with Moral Decency, but only because humans seem to fail to understand that they are one of the leading causes of environmental change.

There are satellite images now that show the percentage of the Earth that is impervious which literally scare the [BEEP] out of me. We've paved over so much of the Earth's land surface in temperate climates, that I'm amazed that the nature hasn't thrown some nasty after us.

My government will support legislation that advocates in favour of controlled growth and believes that governments do have an obligation to get involved in this issue.

Below I have pasted a copy of my recently proposed UN resolution on Population growth:

This has openned up a can of worms already...

Control Population Growth
A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency.


Category: Moral Decency
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Adamsgrad

Standard stuff.

Description: It was difficult to determine what category this proposal falls into. I considered putting it within the environment category, for its impact there. However, for reasons that I will begin to explain, I believe that this proposal best comes under the category of Moral Decency because of the impact that it would have on people's civil rights.

Hmm. That is a tough call.

The World's population is growing at a faster rate than it has at any previous time in history.

Technological advancements have led to an improvement in the quality of medical care being provided by nations across the globe - rich and poor alike. Essentially, these advancements have extended the average life-span of the people of this world while also reducing the death-rate.

And the result of this is? Ever increasing world population figures.

Depends on the nation, their level of technological advancement, and whether you are talking NS or reality. NS has already gone over the max capacity of Earth to support life and would require every square inch of it to be massive apartment complexes and a massive space program with at least every planet in the solar system and all of the neighboring stars having colonies on them. And I am not in the least bit joking.

The NS Earth is, in essence, flexible and often ignores the basics of physics when it comes to how many nations and people it can support. If you wish to bring it down to reasonable, I'll let you decide how many trillions you are going to execute for the crime of being alive.

This creates the following problems:

1.) The world's resources are being stretched to accomodate this population growth. There is, after all, only a finite amount of oil.

The resources were stressed before the medical advancements happened. Now, they're even more so.

But, in NS, they are far from it.

2.) Unemployment. It is impossible to provided jobs for everybody when populations are growing so quickly.

Er, I don't quite get where you got this from. Unless you are looking at nations with failed economies and using them for the basis.

3.) Poverty. This is a net result of the above. Unemployment = poverty = crime.

See above.

4.) Environmental concerns. More people mean more cars on the road. And that means what? More greenhouse emissions, global warming etc. I'm sure you know about the Ozone layer.

This issue has already been dealt with to the capacity it can be while still applying to all UN members.

5.) Longer Waiting lists. Population growth means that healthcare systems have to accomadate for a greater number of people. Essentially, what this means is more people for every doctor to treat.

It also means more doctors, more nurses, and more factories producing medical supplies.

6.) Larger class sizes. This is similar to the above, but affects the quality of education being provided. A high birth rate means that schools have to accomadate for an ever growing number of children. This makes it more difficult to cater for all the children's individual needs.

Easy solution: Home schooling.

As you can see, fast growing populations are affecting ever aspect of society and leading to a general decrease in the quality of life for all.

See my reply to #2.

For this reason, I propose that, from now on, the UN support policies pertaining to controlling population growth throughout the globe.

You do realize the UN includes more people than the real Earth can support, right? The real Saturn is a maybe on that issue, but the real Earth cannot support the NS population. Even a five percent increase of the NSUN population means billions of people are being born. And that's not considering the nonmember nations that are the majority, can ignore this, and can increase their breeding rates in hopes the UN will exterminate itself in a vain hope to control world population growth.

To be more specific, that the UN support birth control as a method for keeping the global population down and thus, enhancing quality of life for everybody living.

Of course, this might mean having to impose a limit on just how many children each family be allowed to have. What this limit should be is something which can be debated within the hallowed halls of the UN. My suggestion is two.

I must oppose this. Not all UN members are having problems with population growth. In fact, some of us actually would need an increase in the rate of our population growth in order to even be utilizing our territories. A limit on population growth needs to be limited to areas where it is a problem, not just the entire UN.

To put this question simply, do we allow the global population to continue to increase rapidly, or take measures to slow the rate of population growth?

Even two births per household can produce a population growth in the billions or at least hundreds of millions. No matter how you cut it, that's still a bigger rate than the real Earth has.

I would be interested to know what you UN delegates think about this proposal. If you don't support it, why not?

I think it needs revision. It doesn't stop to take the reality of the UN or of NS as a whole into consideration. For the kind of population control you are hoping for, you would have to repeal the ban on bioweapons, repeal the Eon Convention, and then engineer a biovirus that has the goal of exterminating humanity and release it. Otherwise, you still end up with an extreme population growth rate, due partly to how many people NS has and the fact the majority of nations don't need to obey this and probably won't.

When I wrote this UN resolution, I wrote it from the perspective of the real world.

However, I also believed the points raised apply to nationstates. Of course, nationstates is just a game, and there is no limit to how large populations can grow on it.

I believe, however, that, as in the real world, the population needs to be kept within manageble bounds.

This is quite simply because of the reasons stated within the resolution. Though, I would like to add, that highly likely that the income per head, or, amount of money made by each individual goes down as populations increase.

My goal is not to stop the population from growing, but to implement measures that will allow us to control population growth. I believe, therefore, that the UN need to adopt a policy on this, that some sort of a UN resolution needs to be passed to this end.

If my resolution needs revision, then I challenge you to revise it here.

This is quite simply because of the reasons stated within the resolution. Though, I would like to add, that highly likely that the income per head, or, amount of money made by each individual goes down as populations increase.


That I would disagree with. If I earn 200 gold pieces, and then another person is born, I still earn 200 gold pieces. Yes the average income per person has gone down, but not the actual income per person.

That I would disagree with. If I earn 200 gold pieces, and then another person is born, I still earn 200 gold pieces. Yes the average income per person has gone down, but not the actual income per person.

I believe he was talking from the POV of a family. It is a pretty easy thing to switch ... family or person.

If you are married and have no kids, you are often described as a DINK -- Dual Income No Kids. If you are married and have 2 kids, but your neighbors have only 1 kid and make about the same amount of money, any parent will tell you that the family of three effectively has more of their income / money to spend per person.

200 gold pieces / 3 > 200 gold pieces / 4

I believe he was talking from the POV of a family. It is a pretty easy thing to switch ... family or person.

If you are married and have no kids, you are often described as a DINK -- Dual Income No Kids. If you are married and have 2 kids, but your neighbors have only 1 kid and make about the same amount of money, any parent will tell you that the family of three effectively has more of their income / money to spend per person.

200 gold pieces / 3 > 200 gold pieces / 4

That much I would agree with. But that was not what was said originally, which is all I can comment on :}

When I wrote this UN resolution, I wrote it from the perspective of the real world.

However, I also believed the points raised apply to nationstates. Of course, nationstates is just a game, and there is no limit to how large populations can grow on it.

I believe, however, that, as in the real world, the population needs to be kept within manageble bounds.

This is quite simply because of the reasons stated within the resolution. Though, I would like to add, that highly likely that the income per head, or, amount of money made by each individual goes down as populations increase.

My goal is not to stop the population from growing, but to implement measures that will allow us to control population growth. I believe, therefore, that the UN need to adopt a policy on this, that some sort of a UN resolution needs to be passed to this end.

If my resolution needs revision, then I challenge you to revise it here.

My question before I continue: What do you define as a manageable number for population growth?

Yeah, slowing population growth is rather pointless, as eventually, it will still reach the failure point, eventually. If we discovered (In RL) a new source of oil, enough to last 50 years, that wouldn't solve the fossil fuel problem, just delay it. Also, I think this is in minor violation of the rules, as decreasing population growth rates would require a change in game mechanics.

This is a tough one, folks.

You can't actually reduce population growth, as that's a game thing. I think the most you can manage would to be a 'Mild' resolution that ENCOURAGES or some such, as, like I said, you can't actually reduce population growth. Even the Game Issue that specifically addresses population growth being out of hand doesn't actually affect the rate.

For the Proposal itself...

The beginning reads like a high school essay on population explosion. Nothing wrong with that, but it's somewhat unnecessary for a UN Proposal, especially that bit at the beginning describing your thought process on picking a category. To be exceptionally blunt, we don't care.

1.) The world's resources are being stretched to accomodate this population growth. There is, after all, only a finite amount of oil. Largely irrelevant on NS. I've got a nation that's been ripping Uranium out of the planet as its primary industry for close to 2 years now. The best we can assume is local scarcity. Worldwide shortages just don't happen.

2.) Unemployment. It is impossible to provided jobs for everybody when populations are growing so quickly.
3.) Poverty. This is a net result of the above. Unemployment = poverty = crime. Too many nation types on NS for these to work. There are nations with massive welfare systems, or communist systems, or who knows what. To assume that A) there's mass unemployment and B) that unemployment leads to crime, is to assume too much. My main nation is in the 8000's for "Lowest Crime Rate", and yet it's discriptor says "Crime is unheard of". That means that while my nation has practically no crime at all, there are over 8000 nations with less crime.

4.) Environmental concerns. More people mean more cars on the road. And that means what? More greenhouse emissions, global warming etc. I'm sure you know about the Ozone layer. Proposals aren't questions. Furthermore, the "hole" in the Ozone layer is a RL concern, it doesn't necessarily apply to NS. Besides, according to a previous Resolution, everyone's busy building Hydrogen vehicles.

*flashes a glare and looks at various UN nations* "And you are, aren't you?"

5.) Longer Waiting lists. Population growth means that healthcare systems have to accomadate for a greater number of people. Essentially, what this means is more people for every doctor to treat. More population also means a larger pool to pull doctors from. Spurious argument.

6.) Larger class sizes. This is similar to the above, but affects the quality of education being provided. Again, more people also means more potential teachers. You're making logical leaps here that don't apply.

As you can see, fast growing populations are affecting ever aspect of society and leading to a general decrease in the quality of life for all.
For this reason, I propose that, from now on, the UN support policies pertaining to controlling population growth throughout the globe. This kind of stuff doesn't really fit NS Proposals. Not illegal, but... bad form.

Of course, this might mean having to impose a limit on just how many children each family be allowed to have. What this limit should be is something which can be debated within the hallowed halls of the UN. My suggestion is two. This is no good. UN Proposals are firm, concrete things. While nations may be given options on things, leaving this stuff up in the air like this is no good. Also, the format is a bit informal.

To put this question simply, do we allow the global population to continue to increase rapidly, or take measures to slow the rate of population growth? Proposals are not questions.

In all honesty, I'm leaning towards saying this proposal would be deleted.

I don't think it's fair to limit the number of children people can have (which seems to me to be the most humane form of population control, genocide not being typically condoned by the "civilized" nations). First of all, I doubt it will solve problems. Speaking from a real world perspective, China long ago began it's "one child" law, which has led mostly to the deaths of thousands of female infants and the creation of a population that is so unbalanced gender wise that when the current generation grows up, their won't be enough women left to reproduce. A great deal of the boys currently growing up in China will never find a Chinese born mate, because of the bad effect the attempted population growth had when it came in contact with cultural attitudes. The problems you listed do not stem from population alone, and their are, or there must be, better means of addressing them. Furthermore Such a proposal in my mind, infringes dangerously on individual rights. It sounds very Savanarola-esque, trying to control people's choices "for their own good". Take one step down this road, and you can't be certain you won't want to take another and another. We disaprove.

Proposals aren't questions. Furthermore, the "hole" in the Ozone layer is a RL concern, it doesn't necessarily apply to NS. Besides, according to a previous Resolution, everyone's busy building Hydrogen vehicles.

*flashes a glare and looks at various UN nations* "And you are, aren't you?"

Nope. The resolution in question only specifically states cars. I extended that to include all ground-based vehicles. I then outlawed all ground-based vehicles and had them replaced with newer vehicles that travel through the air, making them technically aircraft, and began them running off of plutonium power cells.

I have, however, enjoyed watching the NS Earth's Ozone Layer vanish rapidly. If it were the real Earth, by now half the planet would lack ozone protection. One of the side-effects of that much hydrogen being released into the air is it capturing oxygen that normally helps form the ozone layer. I give the NS Earth another five years before UV radiation starts reaching levels that are lethal to humans, at which point the whole humanity problem is solved by self-annihilation.

this proposal, while perhaps a good idea, may not be flexible enough to meet the needs of most. while population growth is unbelievably high, limiting it to two children per family may not accomplish much because the number of people will continue to grow due to the sheer speed of reproduction. i question this proposal's effectiveness, if it really matters so much that population be diminished, and the fact that it is at least a significant violation of human rights. i'm willing to overlook that in certain situations, but the benefits of this proposal are not high enough.

Below I have pasted a copy of my recently proposed UN resolution on Population growth:

Control Population Growth
A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency.


Category: Moral Decency
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Adamsgrad

Description: It was difficult to determine what category this proposal falls into. I considered putting it within the environment category, for its impact there. However, for reasons that I will begin to explain, I believe that this proposal best comes under the category of Moral Decency because of the impact that it would have on people's civil rights.

If you had put it under the environment category I *would have been tempted to* launch nuclear missiles at you. Go look it up in dictionary.com - the word "environment" only has meaning in the context of people.



The World's population is growing at a faster rate than it has at any previous time in history.

Which world?
Heck, even in the real world this isn't true.
-1**.



Technological advancements have led to an improvement in the quality of medical care being provided by nations across the globe - rich and poor alike. Essentially, these advancements have extended the average life-span of the people of this world while also reducing the death-rate.

And the result of this is? Ever increasing world population figures.

Not ever-increasing. Increasing now.
What, you're against people being cured from diseases??


This creates the following problems:

1.) The world's resources are being stretched to accomodate this population growth. There is, after all, only a finite amount of oil.

*I don't believe this to be factual*. In the real world, global oil reserves today are greater than they were 10 years ago. Greater than they were 20 years ago. Greater than they were 30, 40, or 50 years ago.




2.) Unemployment. It is impossible to provided jobs for everybody when populations are growing so quickly.

Thus speaks the liberal arts major who knows nothing about economics. This is just retardedly untrue.
This was harsh, but I still find it funny. I apologize for calling it retarded



3.) Poverty. This is a net result of the above. Unemployment = poverty = crime.

Funny. When I was in Indonesia there was a lot of unemployment, but no abject poverty and very little crime. Source this **.



4.) Environmental concerns. More people mean more cars on the road. And that means what? More greenhouse emissions, global warming etc. I'm sure you know about the Ozone layer.

I know the scare mongering is a politicized lie, if that's what you mean. The loudest voices behind the global warming scare were predicting a new ice age 30 years ago. You may not be old enough to remember, but I am.

Much as I hate to support the Republicans, there is little or no scientific proof that there is such a thing as global warming. Try reading technical journals instead of popularized summaries in newspapers.


5.) Longer Waiting lists. Population growth means that healthcare systems have to accomadate for a greater number of people. Essentially, what this means is more people for every doctor to treat.

Uh.
As the population increases, the number of doctors won't increase? oh, of course not! because you think the "lower classes" are incapable of independent thought and rational decision making.. hmmmmmmmm?


6.) Larger class sizes. This is similar to the above, but affects the quality of education being provided. A high birth rate means that schools have to accomadate for an ever growing number of children. This makes it more difficult to cater for all the children's individual needs.

see above. larger population = more teachers.



As you can see, fast growing populations are affecting ever aspect of society and leading to a general decrease in the quality of life for all.

I see nothing of the sort. I see you wanting poor people to kill their babies and parents.
This was a logical leap on my part. It may not be your intent, but it would be the result of this proposal.


For this reason, I propose that, from now on, the UN support policies pertaining to controlling population growth throughout the globe.

To be more specific, that the UN support birth control as a method for keeping the global population down and thus, enhancing quality of life for everybody living.

Of course, this might mean having to impose a limit on just how many children each family be allowed to have. What this limit should be is something which can be debated within the hallowed halls of the UN. My suggestion is two.

To put this question simply, do we allow the global population to continue to increase rapidly, or take measures to slow the rate of population growth?

I would be interested to know what you UN delegates think about this proposal. If you don't support it, why not?
I'm going to check how large your nation is.
If it's not large, I'm going over to the International Incidents forum and launching some nukes at your country.

Cleaning up the NSUN gene pol.
As it turns out, your nation is too large for me to take it out alone with my small nuclear arsenal. This was supposed to be a joke about reducing population by getting rid of yours.



* above denotes minor revision or removal of gratuitous insults. I blame the scotch.

I give the NS Earth another five years before UV radiation starts reaching levels that are lethal to humans, at which point the whole humanity problem is solved by self-annihilation.
Only if you believe there's some possible level of UV radiation that's lethal to humans.

Because there actually isn't, unless we're talking about a sun radically different from the real world.

Only if you believe there's some possible level of UV radiation that's lethal to humans.

Because there actually isn't, unless we're talking about a sun radically different from the real world.

Actually, there is. Terran is subject to levels of UV radiation that kill just about everything imported from Earth. Then again, Terran orbits a red giant and doesn't have an ozone layer. You must remember that everything becomes lethal beyond certain ranges.

The lethality level of radiation in humans isn't the radiation itself being lethal. It's the fact human DNA is highly unstable and mutates too easily. Cancer is a common side-effect of years of exposure to current levels of UV radiation in real life. In NS, the cancer levels would only be much worse.

Cancer is a common side-effect of years of exposure to current levels of UV radiation in real life.
Junk science, is what that is.

Sorry to be like that after you sold me those nukes on the cheap, but there it is. Skin cancer isn't caused by DNA mutations. UV radiation has no effect on human DNA.

Cancer itself is caused by a genetic mutation. The cells mutate away from preprogrammed controls on reproduction. The cells then begin rapid, uncontrolled reproduction and the results tend to be deadly if not dealt with.

The one thing you have to remember is the fact the human genetic code is actually quite fragile. It doesn't really take that much to cause a mutation of it.

cancer is a description of a symptom, not a class of diseases.
source your assertion that skin cancer is caused by genetic mutation.

I specify skin cancer in the hope that you're not claiming lung cancer is caused by UV radiation. Or any other types of cancer of internal organs.

cancer is a description of a symptom, not a class of diseases.
source your assertion that skin cancer is caused by genetic mutation.

I specify skin cancer in the hope that you're not claiming lung cancer is caused by UV radiation. Or any other types of cancer of internal organs.

Actually, I didn't specify a type of cancer for a reason.

Keep in mind that humans, when exposed to any type of radiation in high levels, tend to suffer from cancer if it doesn't kill them outright. The problem is that no human has ever been exposed to high levels of UV radiation for years on end without at least some form of protection, so in all actuality we don't actually know what the levels of lethality of it are. Terran's sun is obviously lethal, but Terran's sun is also about the size of the entire Sol system. You don't want to know the breakneck speeds at which Terran travels, but let's just say a few ships have been lost because of it ramming into them. Possibility entire system is gravitationally unstable.

Now, going on the fact we lack knowledge, I'm instead going with the fact that too much of anything tends to prove lethal after a time period and making the thesis that, after a few years of being exposed to higher levels of UV radiation than the species is used to, humanity will begin to have adverse side-effects and increased cancer rates.

In any case, it would be interesting to investigate and see exactly what the results will be. All we have to do is wait.

Now, let's get back to the topic.

Asshelmetta,

Quit flaming. This is an official warning.

-The Most Glorious Hack
NationStates Game Moderator

*flashes a glare and looks at various UN nations* "And you are, aren't you?"


This kind of stuff doesn't really fit NS Proposals. Not illegal, but... bad form.

In all honesty, I'm leaning towards saying this proposal would be deleted.

I'd like you to consider that the real UN and real governments have in fact commissioned studies and funded reports that have concluded that population growth *should* be controlled, and that if a ruling is made that it should be made clear that your earlier point that a UN resolution could "ENCOURAGE" governments to seek to limit population growth would be OK.

The reason I say this is as a water quality (public sector) engineer in real life, while we must plan for continual growth in population and water demand, every scientist I've talked to agrees that in addition to meeting future demands, that it is our job to also point out that governments *do* in fact have the option of being pro-active in limiting demand and consumption, be it through re-use / recycling programs or outright population control is a political decision, but that doesn't mean that we can't talk about either.

I think the issue raised isn't one just limited to the real world, but all but godmode enabled roleplays still should follow basic economics, and at some point the ability to consume resources may (note I say may) outpace the ability to find new ones.

As for those Hydrogen Cars ... Kibombwe's resolution never set a time frame nor priority for domestic implementation ..."Does anyone remember the days when 'fresh air' was actually fresh?" Yeah, my government filed this 'important' resolution along with a host of other 'important' resolutions, like Stop Dumping - Start Cleaning (and its strange reference of _dollars_) and slightly behind the all important DVD Region Removal resolution. After all, in the words of the DVD Region Removal resolution, "one region is all wek need." ;)

Asshelmetta,

Quit flaming. This is an official warning.

-The Most Glorious Hack
NationStates Game Moderator
OK. Which was the flaming, my response to AdamGrad's proposal, or my discussion about skin cancer with DLE?

Oh. I re-read my response to Adamsgrad, and yeah, I was over the line. I blame society!

It's still a terrible and evil proposal in many ways, imnsho.

Greetings again, UN members and Nationstates.

From reading the responses, I can only conclude a few things:

1.) That, largely, most of the nations who have responded here do not agree with my resolution on the following grounds:

Do not agree with agenda, full stop.

Believe that resolution raises some valid points, but, is ambiguous, needs revision, and, almost merits grounds for deletion on the grounds of interefering with game mechanics.

Curiously though, some also argue that resolution does not really apply to nationstates.

2.) That, some, do, agree with the issues raised within the resolution, and claim, that in reality, this issue is being addressed by the real UN.

3.) That one nation has, in the course of the debate, actually threatned to attack my nation with nuclear missiles if my nation does not have a large population itself. Actually, my population is about 240 million. Not massive, by any means, but not tiny either.

I am shocked that we have been threatned in this manner, for doing little more than raising an issue to be discussed. I do not believe, in the light of this discussion, that the proposal has a realistic chance of becoming a resolution, but also do not consider ourselves to have committed a crime in bringing it to the surface.

I therefore consider this threat as a deliberate act of aggression on behalf of your nation, and will check to see if you are a UN member. If so, I may consider reporting this incident to the UN and have you expelled for violating international law.

Greetings again, UN members and Nationstates.

From reading the responses, I can only conclude a few things:

1.) That, largely, most of the nations who have responded here do not agree with my resolution on the following grounds:

Do not agree with agenda, full stop.

Or feel agenda is flawed and needs revision. You need to take into account that not all UN members are going to have population problems, mainly because of how NS Earth is and the fact many UN members are not on Earth.

Believe that resolution raises some valid points, but, is ambiguous, needs revision, and, almost merits grounds for deletion on the grounds of interefering with game mechanics.

Curiously though, some also argue that resolution does not really apply to nationstates.

NS has, at the last count by Sal, over 76 trillion people in it. You pretty much have to stop people from reproducing for a few years to get anything resembling a reasonable population growth.

2.) That, some, do, agree with the issues raised within the resolution, and claim, that in reality, this issue is being addressed by the real UN.

The real UN is trying to deal with it. And failing.

3.) That one nation has, in the course of the debate, actually threatned to attack my nation with nuclear missiles if my nation does not have a large population itself. Actually, my population is about 240 million. Not massive, by any means, but not tiny either.

By NS standards? In the last sentences, drop the second "not" and add the words "and insignificant" after the "tiny." That's just how most people look at it.

I am shocked that we have been threatned in this manner, for doing little more than raising an issue to be discussed. I do not believe, in the light of this discussion, that the proposal has a realistic chance of becoming a resolution, but also do not consider ourselves to have committed a crime in bringing it to the surface.

You would not be the first nation destroyed in response to a proposal. It's happened before.

I therefore consider this threat as a deliberate act of aggression on behalf of your nation, and will check to see if you are a UN member. If so, I may consider reporting this incident to the UN and have you expelled for violating international law.

No violation present. They are threatening to attack for a reason they feel is legitimate. If UN members could be expelled for that, the UN would dwindle to about 500 members rapidly.

Are you saying, that in the imaginary world of nationstates, it not a violation of international law to threaten a nation with nuclear attack if they don't happen to agree with their opnion?

I was ignorant of many of the actual game issues when I made that proposal, writing from the perspective of the real-world. I am/was ignorant of the game issues pertaining to nationstates populations.

I was aware that nationstate populations were nothing like the real-world population. I was aware that they were infinately larger.

I still believe that, large populations are bad for society, including nation-state society for the reasons states within the resolution.

Are you saying, that in the imaginary world of nationstates, it not a violation of international law to threaten a nation with nuclear attack if they don't happen to agree with their opnion?

Yep. Nor is it illegal to bomb them from orbit, blow up their planet (if not Earth), or dump very harmful materials on their nation.

I was ignorant of many of the actual game issues when I made that proposal, writing from the perspective of the real-world. I am/was ignorant of the game issues pertaining to nationstates populations.

I was aware that nationstate populations were nothing like the real-world population. I was aware that they were infinately larger.

I still believe that, large populations are bad for society, including nation-state society for the reasons states within the resolution.

However, most of us have not faced those problems. As the population increases, the demand for jobs and demand for what those jobs produce also increases. The result is a form of stability.

Are you saying, that in the imaginary world of nationstates, it not a violation of international law to threaten a nation with nuclear attack if they don't happen to agree with their opnion?
Oddly, there doesn't even seem to be much of a nuclear non-proliferation treaty in NSUN.

I've thought about proposing one, but I'm afraid one of the nuclear powers would just blow my country off the map.



I still believe that, large populations are bad for society, including nation-state society for the reasons states within the resolution.
See, this is our basic disconnect right here. I don't understand how you can draw a line between population and society. A large population is a large society. Limiting population means killing off part of your society.

Your proposal, in RP terms, could only lead to euthanasia and infanticide. I don't see how killing your daughter because you're only allowed one child and you want it to be a boy helps anyone. I don't see how pushing the old folks out into the snow is a good thing, even for the Inuit - you'll notice they stopped doing it once they had contact with modern society and their standard of living increased just a little.

In game terms it means my little country could never be anything but a little country, and the players who started a few months before me would always be the only ones who mattered.

I wouldn't worry Asshelmetta. The proposal has no hope of being passed.

I understand from your telegrams, that you have affectly apologised with regard to your early threats of nuclear attack. I hereby accept this apology, and recognise you, once more, as a civilized nation.

I admit that, I made obvious mistakes with the proposed resolutions. It was my first attempt at writing one, and I did not read help guide before hand. Clearly, it makes explicit references to the real-world, and with that in mind, does not strictly adhere to the rules governing these things.

However, I still believe that, in the real world, it is a problem and affects society.

Note that, population refers to how larege a society is.

Society refers to how populations are organised, class, race gender etc.

Oddly, there doesn't even seem to be much of a nuclear non-proliferation treaty in NSUN.

I've thought about proposing one, but I'm afraid one of the nuclear powers would just blow my country off the map.


They can't.

The same ability that gives players the ability to claim to own legions of magical weapons of mass destruction also gives you the ability to claim you have an spy network full of James Bonds that can twart their attempt every time.

Early in the game they basically came up with the concept of I.G.N.O.R.E. cannons, which say if somebody wants to GodMode and nuke you ... and a prolific UN forum regular once threatened to do the same to me and I just told him to godmode elsewhere, the idea is that you can just ignore them. Your country will survive and the game goes on.

The larger issue is nuclear non-proliferation treaties, while a good idea, have been kinda poorly worded. The major problem is to date the ones that reached the UN floor:

End Nuclear Proliferation Act
Ban Nuclear Weapons

(The full text of which can be found at:
http://pweb.netcom.com/~mierzwa10k/una/GD.pdf)

Both were really viewed by UN members as being all or nothing approaches. Nobody has really managed to draft up a resolution that just decreases the number of nukes built.

That in and of itself might not be enough to counter the following classic anti-disarmament argument:

NationStates has 120,000+ nations, of which roughly 35,000 to 45,000 nations are in the UN at a given time. Any resolution which disarms the 1/3 of the nations in NationStates only will give a military advantage to the reamining 2/3.

Now I don't agree with this. Of that 2/3 that have the military advantage who isn't to say that one of those 85,000 non-UN members that one of them isn't "Palpatine's Empire" and floating around in space with Death Stars. Right, it would be Godmoding, and any puppet based counter-attack would likely be met with the same I.G.N.O.R.E. cannons I mentioned before, but then it raises the question ... why can't a UN member just claim to have a Nuclear Defense shield in the first place???

Generally people advocate that it is best to not respond to godmoding with more godmoding, but to just ignore the threat in the first place. However, if we weren't talking about disarming nukes, but instead talking about disarming tactical fighters or reducing global infrantry forces, people would reason that the argument, "This will put your military in a weaker position" as being pretty darn realistic. And if that is realistic, there are many nations that feel that MAD (Mutally Assured Destruction) is very real and a sound military defense.

The votes on disarmament resolutions are close:

ENPA was at 7,787 to 9,955
BNW was at 7,401 to 9,706

In order to really pass a Nuclear Non-Proliferation (not disarmament treaty), it would really IMO take a well known military roleplayer whom is well respected and active in the feeder regions to argue that the resolution is just designed to reduce __future__ percentages of money spent on weapons. They could argue that by reinvesting military budgets into economic development that in time, UN economies might improve and a 1% military decrease in an economy that has increased 10% is like a 9% increase. This is of course pure speculation and open to that very counter point, but I honestly think with a month or two of preplanning and talking to feeder regions, that a Non-Proliferation treaty *can* actually pass.

I've thought about enlisting the aid of other capitalist moderate nations like mine own to do this, because I'd rather my government spend more money on disaster prevention programs and diesel engines (or even conventional weapons like armor units ... one of the advantages of having an industry built around marketing locomotives, is that rail or not, Panzers can crank out of Miervatian factories just as easily as your standard General Purpose (GP) / Road Switcher (RS) engine ... not that we'll admit to having any). ;)

The reason I've not done this, is as much as I think this sort of effort can pass, I also think it would be the hardest fought political battle of NationStates. Both sides, really IMO have legitimate arguments. For every good argument in favour, there is an equally good counter argument sitting around.

I tried to make a non-proliferation of near-earth space, and it was met with stiff UN forum regular resistance, though I had around 100 delegate endorsements *without* any telegramming. I have another idea that should work ... but again, uphill battle. And I also realize that since I want to promote more economic and assistance between nations that my own time is better spent working on other things.

So if somebody (like you) wanted to make another attempt at a Nuclear Disarmament resolution, I'd love to offer my advice on a draft and will be happy to make some significant re-writes to any draft ... provided it is pretty well constructed to begin with. And since I found your arguments on the Tsunami issue to be thought provoking and logical, I actually think *you* are very capable of writing a well designed resolution. Spend a few weeks on the idea, as I think pass or fail that in 2-3 months time somebody else will make the attempt again anways. :) [Resolutions sort of recycle. So many of the proposals in the queue often are completely new and independent proposals that dupblicate existing resolutions ... this is done not on purpose, but because the original ideas / topics were pretty important to begin with and players don't know what sorts of resolutions __failed__. Those aren't archived. And many of them don't look to see what was already adopted.

Good luck! :)

However, no matter your opinion on nukes, choosing to ignore a well-roleplayed attempt at nuking, whether on this forum or the other two RP forums, is a form of godmode of its own. The players who do get away with that have policies about how to deal with RPs that they make apparent and apply to everyone.

Using weapons of mass destruction on this forum has become, despite what anyone may tell you, semi-accepted. Many of the regulars who are respected say nothing about it most of the time.

And since I found your arguments on the Tsunami issue to be thought provoking and logical, I actually think *you* are very capable of writing a well designed resolution.
oh, stop! you're making me blush.

That was a very informative post; thank you.

I'm going to have to figure out how things work in NS better before I try anything that contentious. My first nation got deleted when Pilot launched a barrage of nukes at it - I've been assuming the admins saw the post and decided the attack was unstoppable and erased the country.

I'll discuss non-proliferation within my region. Probably too late, even there - since I scored some nukes, several nations have gone into a mad arms race.